Fri, 07 Nov 2008

California's recent election included a citizen-generated Proposition 8, which
amends the California state Constitution to restrict marriage to one man
and one woman. As you might expect, it was hugely controversial, and if it
passes, as is likely, it will be with a percentage or two majority.

Picolopoo got me to blog about this. The problem here is simple; the
solution less so. The problem is that you have a social institution and
a legal institution coupled together in one name. I completely "get" why
some people want to protect the social institution. Marriage is only for
one man and one woman, sure, fine.

I less understand why anyone would want to deny legal rights to any
group of people who have contracted to live together. What does it mean
for "blood relatives" or "immediate family" to have hospital visitation
rights? Why should there be inheritance within a marriage have special tax
treatment? Why should a step-parent be allowed to pick up a child from
school? And ... why should a church be allowed to create a legal
arrangement?

I think this legal fight should be over legal rights. The trouble is that
"marriage" ties in the social (often religious) arrangement. Perhaps the
term "family" is broad enough to include everyone?